A good chunk of AOL Time Warner is owned by Prince Alwaleed Ibn Talal the Saudi billionaire. It is well known that Prince AlWaleed is a front for the Saudi royal family. All of the oil money that is swindled from Aramco the Saudi oil company is “invested” by Prince Al Waleed and his company. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1465942/posts, http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_basketball_heat/2008/09/beasley-hurt-ea.html?cid=132826195#comment-132826195
From the ‘Saudi Online’ page:RIYADH, 12 March — Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal announced yesterday that he has spent $1 billion on stocks over the last six months, including another $500 million on Citigroup.
“Already the world’s largest shareholder in Citigroup, the prince’s shareholding in the world’s most profitable bank is now around $10 billion,” said a press release from his Kingdom Holding group.
“At about $43, Citi’s share price was at too attractive a price,” the prince said in the statement.
And he added $450 million to existing shares in AOL Time Warner. “The price was very cheap at around $23,” the prince said.
“I believe in the power of the AOL brand and I am already a shareholder in this global media giant. Therefore, when the price reached lucrative levels, we decided to increase our stake. The weakness in AOL’s stock price is temporary as it reflects the temporary weakness in several areas in which it is involved,” Alwaleed said.
He also increased his stake in priceline.com to $100 million, or 5.4 percent of the company.saudia-online.com/NewsMar02/news06.shtml

AOL BIAS – This is a growing guide to AOL political and religious bias seen by AOL subscribers as
demanded by its Arab owners.
Alwaleed,Arab,owned,Arab,money
AOL shows political and religious bias in its news coverage. The bias is also seen in the use of AOL message board
censorship policies. Poster’s messages are deleted by AOL monitors violating AOL’s own Terms of Service, TOS.
Time Warner has taken no action to stop the bias but has looked into it. They did nothing. AOL is owned by Arab money.
Alwaleed spent $1 billion on stocks recently
RIYADH, 12 March — Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal announced yesterday that he added $450 million to existing shares in AOL Time Warner.
“The price was very cheap at around $23,” the prince said.http://www.dicksguides.com/ZDGKN/POLS/AOLissues/AOLownedbyArabs.htm

Georgetown’s Capitulation to Radical Islam
By Joe Kaufman and Jeffrey Epstein
FrontPageMagazine.com Friday, January 06, 2006
Georgetown University was built with a Catholic and Jesuit identity. This bit of information is proudly displayed on the school’s website. But like Bethlehem in Israel, that identity is quickly being lost to a radical strain of Islam, as a counter-terror symposium has been abandoned and a pro-terror conference has been confirmed. Indeed, one of America’s most prestigious universities appears to be under siege.
Fearing violent reprisal from militant Muslim members of their student body, the school’s conference center rejected an educational symposium being hosted by America’s Truth Forum (formerly the People’s Truth Forum), a non-partisan, fact-based organization whose sole mission is to educate the American people on topics of national security. In this case, the subject matter to be discussed involved the “Underlying Roots of Terrorism: The Radical Islamist Threat to World Peace and National Security.”…
While the counter-terror symposium was shunned, an organization associated with violence has been awarded a forum. From February 17 – 19, the Palestine Solidarity Movement (PSM), an activist group that has expressed its willingness to work with Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, will be holding its “Fifth Annual Divestment Conference” on Georgetown University’s campus. At past events, shouts of “Kill the Jews” and “Death to Israel” could be heard amongst the crowd. And according to a news report, during PSM’s last conference, when a resolution to condemn terrorism was voted down, “the delegates erupted in cheers.”
When PSM announced its event, it’s interesting to see who they sent a press release to. A site that devotes a page to the release, Palestine Monitor, is said by one source to be a “PRO-TERRORIST SITE.” This is easy to understand, as the website contains numerous pages glorifying the Intifada (uprising) against Israel. Another location that prominently displays the press release is Ramallah Online, a hate site that equates the Jewish Star (Star of David) with the Nazi Swastika.
Not wanting to anger its on-campus insurgency, the university has remained hush about the event. The consideration of a small matter of money may also be on Georgetown’s mind. The PSM conference is coming on the heels of a $20 million donation to the school, given by a fairly effluent Saudi sheikh, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. This is the same sheikh who had previously donated $27 million to a telethon that raised money for the families of suicide bombers.http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=3398EF71-9067-4C86-88D2-9A8AD51427A5

New Islamic satellite channel launched
March 8, 2006
Filed under: Newspapers — Hans Henrik Lichtenberg
Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal, the chief executive of Saudi Arabia’s Kingdom Holding Company, has officially launched an Islamic satellite channel seeking to project Islam as a religion of moderation, the Arab News online daily reports. Al-Resalah (The Message) has been broadcasting informally since last Wednesday. At a press conference on Monday, Prince Alwaleed said the 24-hour channel would target an Arab audience, especially young people, by projecting ‘our Arab heritage through a modern medium.’. Al-Resalah will be the forerunner of a future English-language Islamic channel for Western audiences. The prince said the new Islamic network would provide a platform for a dialogue on religious, social and economic issues affecting everyday life, but its priority would be to counteract the misconceptions of Islam in other societies. Tarek Alsuwaidan, the channel?s general manager, said that 40 per cent of the programmes would be youth oriented, 30 per cent would target women and families, and 10 per cent would focus on children, Arab News reports. (AKI,March 08, 2006)http://blog.newspaperindex.com/category/newspapers/page/7/

Kari Vogt, historian of religion at the University of Oslo, has stated that Ibn Warraq’s book “Why I am Not a Muslim” is just as irrelevant to the study of Islam as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are to the study of Judaism. She is widely considered as one of the leading expert on Islam in Norway, and is frequently quoted in national media on matters related to Islam and Muslim immigration. People who get most of their information from the mainstream media, which goes for the majority of the population, will thus be systematically fed biased information and half-truths about Islam from our universities, which have largely failed to uphold the ideal of free inquiry. Unfortunately, this situation is pretty similar at universities and colleges throughout the West.

London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), scene to a growing number of anti-Semitic incidents from an increasingly pro-Islamic campus, issued a threat to one of its Jewish students to cease his protests against anti-Semitism at the University. Gavin Gross, an American, had been leading a campaign against the deterioration of conditions for Jewish students at SOAS, which is part of the University of London. SOAS had witnessed an escalation of anti-Jewish activity, in both severity and frequency. At the beginning of the year, the Islamic Society screened a video which compared Judaism with Satanism.
Meanwhile, in a move to “promote understanding between Islam and the West,” Saudi Arabia donated about SR13 million to a leading British museum. The officials said the money from Prince Sultan would pay for a new Saudi and Islamic gallery, which would help to portray Islamic culture and civilization in right perspectives. It would also help fund scholarships for Saudi students at Oxford University.

The Saudis and other oil-rich Arabs are busy buying influence over what Westerners hear about Islam. Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud, a member of the Saudi Royal Family, is an international investor currently ranked among the ten richest persons in the world. He is known in the USA for a $10 million check he offered to New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani in October 2001 for the Twin Towers Fund. Mayor Giuliani returned the gift when he learned that the prince had called for the United States to “re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause.”

Prince Talal is also creating a TV channel, Al-Resalah, to target American Muslims. He already broadcasts in Saudi Arabia. In 2005, Bin Talal bought 5.46% of voting shares in News Corp, the parent of Fox News. In December 2005 he boasted to Middle East Online about his ability to change what viewers see on Fox News. Covering the riots in France that fall, Fox ran a banner saying: “Muslim riots.” Bin Talal was not happy. “I picked up the phone and called Murdoch […] [and told him] these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty,” he said. “Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots.”http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/4257

Follow the Money: Obama contributor Talat M. Othman 23 Feb 2008 by to be announced Khalidi, a “virulent critic of Israel”, has “denounced Israel as an ‘apartheid’ state.” Pipes wrote that Othman is “president of the founding committee of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago (CIOGC). …

UN rights chief hit on Arab charter support Jewish Telegraphic Agency, NY – Jan 29, 2008 The charter, according to a letter sent to High Commissioner Louise Arbour, includes “blatantly anti-Semitic statements” and equates Zionism with racism, …http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/106682.html

Canada Calls UN Led Anti-Racism Conference a ‘Gong Show’ of Hatred …28 Jan 2008 by Terry Trippany The United Nations held its first World Conference Against Racism in Durban way back in 2001. That conference was marred by anti-Semitic bigotry that eventually led the United States Israel to walk out of the conference.

UN Watch has criticized the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights for endorsing the Arab Charter of Human Rights.

The charter, according to a letter sent to High Commissioner Louise Arbour, includes “blatantly anti-Semitic statements” and equates Zionism with racism, a concept that was rejected by the United Nations in 1991.

The preamble of the Arab Charter states that the signatories are “Rejecting racism and zionism, which constitute a violation of human rights and pose a threat to world peace.”

The Arab League adopted the charter in 1994, but it did not have the required number of endorsers until earlier this month when the United Arab Emirates became the seventh of 22 member states to ratify it.

On Jan. 24, Arbour released a statement welcoming theratification.

UN Watch urged Arbour to clarify her endorsement.

“As you know, Zionism is the movement for Jewish self-determination and asserts the inherent and internationally-acknowledged right of Israel to exist,” the letter said. “A text that equates Zionism with racism, describes it as a threat to world peace, as an enemy of human rights and human dignity, and then urges its elimination, is blatantly anti-Semitic.”

The letter notes that former Secretary-General Kofi Annan described the U.N. General Assembly’s 1975 “Zionism is racism” resolution as a low point of the U.N.’s record on anti-Semitism. It also encourages Arbour “to hold accountable any members of your Office who were or should have been aware of , but failed to call your attention to, these racist provisions.”

One of the accusations which the various Arab countries (including Egypt and Jordan which have peace treaties with Israel) often make against Israel is that “Zionism is racism”. Defining Zionism, the national liberation movement of jews, the victims of racism, as racism is particularly cynical, yet it seems that the Arabs have succeeded to convince the leaders of some nations, themselves victims of racism, to support this vicious accusation.
The latest attempt to define Zionism as racism was at the 2001 UNESCO conference which was held in Durban, South Africa. The resolution which was initiated by Arab countries enjoyed the support of most participants. Especially painful was the support of such African leaders as Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu. Some Western countries, however, notably Australia and Canada, objected and accused the conference of hypocrisy. The Canadian delegation, for example, issued the following statement:
“Canada is still here today only because we wanted to have our voice decry the attempts at this Conference to de-legitimize the State of Israel and to dishonor the history and suffering of the Jewish people. We believe, and we have said in the clearest possible terms, that it was inappropriate – wrong – to address the Palestinian-Israel conflict in this forum. We have said, and will continue to say, that anything – any process, any declaration, any language – presented in any forum that does not serve to advance a negotiated peace that will bring security, dignity and respect to the people of the region is – and will be – unacceptable to Canada.”
It was for that reason that both Israel and the United States under the leadership of Secretary Colin Powell, himself no stranger to racism, pulled their delegations from the conference. The final text adopted by the conference drops all direct criticism of Israel, but does recognize the Palestinians’ right to self-determination and expresses concern at their plight under foreigh occupation.
That was only the latest attempt to define Zionism as racism. In November 1975, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 declared that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination” In December 1991, the General Assembly rescinded this resolution through Resolution 4686.
All those years the Arab countries continued to promote this false notion. It is therefore of interest to check how different things are on the other side of the fence, namely in the Arab countries. Even though there are many blacks who live in those countries the question whether they are subject to racism was academic for a long time and one had to resort to circumstantial evidence in order to answer it. One well-known fact is that most Arabs refer to blacks as “Abed” which means “slave” in Arabic. This seems to say something about the situation of racism in the Arab world. Today, due to the recent events in Darfur and the active role that the Arab Janjaweed play in the slaughter of black Africans there, this question has become more urgent and relevant than ever before. It is time for the UN and the whole world to fight it NOW

OTTAWA (AP) — Canada has withdrawn its support for a U.N. anti-racism conference scheduled to take place in South Africa next year after deeming it to be anti-Israel, a government official said Wednesday.

The so-called Durban II conference “has gone completely off the rails” and Canada wants no part of it, said Jason Kenney, Canada’s secretary of state for multiculturalism and Canadian identity.

“We’ll attend any conference that is opposed to racism and intolerance, not those that actually promote racism and intolerance,” he said.

Kenney said that during the 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban, Arab and Muslim countries criticized Israel, prompting Israel and the United States to walk out in protest. But he added that Canada remained to speak up for Israel.

The U.N. declined to comment directly on Canada pulling out of the conference, but U.N. spokeswoman Marie Okabe said “racism is too important an issue for member states not to work out their differences.”

Kenney said his government was left with no choice but to abandon the process, expressing displeasure with Libya elected to chair the gathering, Cuba appointed vice-chair, and Iran named to the organizing committee.

By PAUL SCHNEIDEREIT
Tue. Jan 29 – 4:47 AM
HYPOCRISY, the popular 19th-century American journalist and satirist Ambrose Bierce once observed, could be defined as “prejudice with a halo.”

As false halos go, there are few bigger – or shinier, in that cheap, glittery way – than the one now swaying precariously over the United Nations’ so-called Human Rights Council. Since the council was formed as part of former secretary-general Kofi Annan’s “UN reform” a few years back, the world’s supposed watchdog for violations of human rights has been able to officially condemn just one country for abuses of those rights: Israel.

If that sounds familiar – you’re right, it is. The council’s disgraced predecessor, the equally misnamed UN human rights commission, also chose to devote itself, one might say religiously, to Israel’s alleged infractions of human rights in its interminable conflict with the Palestinians.

Now, these human rights bodies have every right to investigate Israel’s behaviour and, when appropriate, rebuke the Jewish state for actions going beyond being reasonable measures of self-defence. But to focus almost exclusively on Israel, while ignoring – or downplaying the seriousness of – all other incidents elsewhere in the world, including what’s often brutal suppression of people’s human rights, is utterly wrong.

Of course, the fact that the countries which sat as members of the old commission, as well as the nations making up the new council, have often been the very countries that have compiled the most disgraceful human rights records means we are discussing hypocrisy being practised at a very high level (to paraphrase Bierce, where the angels sing).

Which brings us to the news the UN’s Human Rights Council is now busy planning a second UN conference on racism in 2009, to be held, as the first one was in 2001, in Durban, South Africa. Who’s in charge of the planning? Two countries with among the most appalling human rights records on the planet: Libya and Iran.

For anyone who’s forgotten what happened in Durban six-and-a-half years ago, that so-called conference on ending racism in the world witnessed demonstrations of virulent anti-Semitism directed against both Israel specifically and Jews in general. One example of many: Copies of the so-called Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a well-documented forgery (most likely created by the Russian czar’s police) that purports to be the secret plans for a Jewish world takeover, were openly sold within the conference area.

Equally repulsive was the canard – put forward forcefully in Durban in 2001 – that Western nations had a responsibility to pay hefty reparations to Africa to atone for their role in the transatlantic slavery trade. That, however, ignores several facts.

Some Africans themselves were complicit in that trade. Slavery itself (though the transatlantic trade was ended by the British in the early 19th century) was not outlawed in a number of African states until the latter part of the 20th century (Mauritania, for example, banned slavery in 1981 but only criminalized it in 2007). Experts believe today that some 27 million people worldwide (many in African countries, such as Niger) are in some form of human bondage. Saudi Arabia, where black slaves were sold well into the 20th century, only outlawed slavery in 1962.

The U.S. and Israeli delegations, to their credit, walked out of the Durban conference in disgust midway through; Canada, though critical of what transpired, stayed.

With Libya and Iran at the helm for Durban II, we know what to expect – more anti-Semitism, this time more explicitly ingrained in the conference’s agenda. In December, 41 countries in the UN General Assembly, including Canada, voted against $6.8 million US in funding for the conference, to protest the anti-Semitic themes emerging in planning for the event. The measure, backed by Arab countries and supporters, however, easily passed. So last week, Canada exercised some true international moral leadership, becoming the first nation in the world to announce it would not attend the conference.

The government’s secretary of state for multiculturalism, Jason Kenney, told reporters Canada wanted no part of a Durban conference that would promote, not combat, racism.

Good for the Tories. We should refuse to take part in this sham. That so many in the world continue to promote hatred against Jews is despicable. To do so under the banner of the UN, founded to promote world peace, and the auspices of that body’s “human rights” council, is Orwellian.

Hopefully, Canada will soon be joined by other countries which honestly value human rights, leaving the cesspool that will be Durban II to those with tarnished halos and no sense of shame.

muslim racism … and Arab nations and their sympathizers, has accused Israel of racism, but the … of Islamic and Arab states and other anti-Israel forces, and whose conclusions …http://www.truthandgrace.com/muslimracism.htm
F L A M E : Racism in the Islamic World: How can peace prevail in the … … for decades to terminate the increasingly violent Arab-Israeli conflict. … and Arab nations and their sympathizers, has accused Israel of racism, but the …http://www.factsandlogic.org/ad_94.html

“Terrorism and Racism: The Aftermath of Durban,” by Anne F. Bayefsky … Arab Reactions to September 11 / Fomenting the Battle Against Israel / Searching … Minister of the United Arab Emirates, said “Israel can’t be a member of …http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp468.htm

History Upside Down The Roots of Palestinian Fascism and the Myth of Israeli AggressionDAVID MEIR-LEVI

Overview
Reviews
Excerpt

[Dec. 18, 2007]

In the United Nations, on university campuses, and among a growing number of our most prestigious Western newspapers, the historical record has been rewritten so thoroughly that Israel is seen as the worst of the oppressive Western occupiers of the Third World. So successful has this campaign been that Palestinian spinmeisters and their apologists have effectively declared that the Israelis, a people living in the shadow of the Holocaust, are themselves “Nazis.” How could this happen? How did unacceptable anti-Semitism morph into justifiable anti-Zionism, and odious Jew-hatred turn into a politically correct Israel-hatred?

In History Upside Down historian David Meir-Levi traces the ideological DNA behind Palestinian Nationalism and its ludicrous “alternative” histories, revealing how Nazi Fascism gave the Arab world’s amorphous hatred of the Jews an intellectual structure and how Soviet communism masked its genocidal intentions with the mantle of national liberation.

Meir-Levi then explodes the cornerstone myths that this movement created – myths that rationalize and celebrate decades of unremitting terror and genocidal ambitions, in effect turning the history of the Middle East upside down and inside out, making the victim the aggressor and the aggressor the victim.

History Upside-Down is the first wave in a counterattack against this Arab war on history. It rejects the idea that the basic situation in the Middle Easthas changed since the United Nations first established the Jewish state and the Palestinian state that would have stood alongside it. Sadly, argues Meir-Levi, the issue in the Middle East is today what it has been since the Muslim invasion in the seventh century: the Arabs’ hatred of the Jews.

By David Meir-LeviFrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, November 27, 2007 Arab propaganda has been successful in presenting a picture of the Palestinian people as the helpless and innocent victims of Israeli aggression — potential friends of America who have been alienated by America’s support for Israel and its failure to support a Palestinian national state. This decision is itself the result of a “Jewish Lobby” run by “neocons” and “receiving its orders” from Israel. The fact that Palestinians are now led by two terrorist organizations, Fatah and Hamas, is also blamed on Israel and the United States rather than on the Palestinians who elected terrorists as leaders.According to Palestinian revisionism, the Palestinians lived from time immemorial in historic Palestine, a veritable paradise of flourishing orchards and fertile vineyards, teeming with happy peasants. Then, the evil Zionists came and, with the support of the British, stole the Palestinians’ land, exiled their people, and initiated a reign of terror and ethnic cleansing that has not abated until this very day.Goebbels died 60 years ago, but his core propaganda strategy lives on in the Great Arab Lie that there exists a Palestinian people who have suffered great injustices at the hands of Israel, the UK, and the USA. Arab leaders know that if they just keep repeating the same lie often enough, eventually people will believe it — and the greater the lie, the more readily will people believe it.

Since the Six-Day War, the Arab world’s most powerful leaders — in Egypt, Libya, Arabia, Syria, and Iraq prior to Saddam’s demise — have waged a war of words against Israel. Having failed to defeat Israel by means of naked military aggression, these leaders and their advisors decided, sometime between the end of the war and the Khartoum Conference of August-September 1967, to bring about the destruction of Israel by means of a relentless terror war.

To justify to the world their ruthless mass murder of Israeli civilians and their undying hatred of the West, these leaders needed to invent a bizarre and apposite reality. Slowly but surely, the reality of the “little David” Israel assailed by the “giant Goliath” of the entire Arab world has been reversed. Now the “Goliath” Israel is depicted as the racist, apartheid, war-mongering, oppressive, illegal occupier Jewish State, regional superpower, hell-bent on the destruction, indeed, the genocide of the poor, defenseless Palestinian people — the Middle East’s new “David.” This grotesque fiction could be foisted upon the world only if there were indeed a “little David” for Goliath Israel to oppress; only if Israel’s combatant in the conflict were not the entire Arab world, but rather some poor, enfeebled people who could mount no real defense against the Jewish superpower, but nonetheless had a stronger claim to the land of Israel than Israel itself.

Thus the PLO, under the tutelage of the KGB, invented “The Palestinian People.”

This propaganda war has developed a mendacious narrative which works in two directions at once. On one hand, Arab propaganda sources claim the Canaanites were Palestinians; Abraham was a Palestinian; so were David, Solomon, and even Jesus. And the Jews were interlopers, invaders, and conquerors in the days of Joshua, just as they are now.

On the other hand, Israel is discredited and delegitimised in the present by the endless anti-Israel resolutions in the UN, orchestrated in large part by the Arab bloc and their Russian (formerly Soviet) mentors; and by the constant clamor of Arab states to the world at large, promoting the risible assertion that Israel is the aggressor. This occurs even though Israel has sued for peace after winning each war, Israel has agreed a dozen times over to the creation of a Palestinian state on part of its land, even as Hamas’ qassam rockets fall daily upon innocent Israeli civilians, even as Hezbollah declares vociferously its goal of the annihilation of world Jewry, and Iran looks forward perpetrating a nuclear Armageddon in order to create a world without Israel. If only Israel were destroyed, they assert, then the entire Middle East would know peace.

This mendacious narrative is stalwartly bolstered by a growing host of pseudo-academics in Western universities, and by a cadre of Western journalists, who churn out books and articles that effectively rewrite history and archaeology in order to erase Israel’s connection to the Holy Land and thus deny both the Christian and Jewish historic and religious roots in the Land of Israel.

This propaganda campaign to legitimize the 60-year-old Arab war against Israel and to create the fiction of the “Palestinian people” as the poor oppressed victims of imperialist colonialist Israel, illegally occupying “Historic Palestine,” is a veritable war against History. It deals in lies, just the kind of lies Goebbels had in mind. And the biggest lie of all is the existence of a “Palestinian People.”

How the Lie BeganAfter he took over as leader of the PLO, [1]Arafat sent his adjutant, Abu Jihad (later the leader of the PLO’s military operations), to North Vietnam to study the strategy and tactics of guerilla warfare. Arafat was struck by Ho Chi Minh’s success with left-wing sympathizers in the United States and Europe. “Progressive” activists on American campuses, enthusiastically following the line of North Vietnamese operatives, had succeeded in reframing the Vietnam War from a Communist conquest of the South into a struggle for national liberation. An insight into this North Vietnamese PR campaign, which provided the key to the Communist victory and a lesson for PLO operatives, was offered by Ho’s chief strategist, General Giap: “Stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn your terror war into a struggle for human rights. Then you will have the American people eating out of your hand.”

Giap’s counsel was simple but profound: the PLO needed to work in a way that concealed its real goals, permitted strategic deception, and gave the appearance of moderation. And the key to all this was creating an image that would help Arafat manipulate the American and Western news media.

The PLO also looked to other examples of a “people’s war” to find both military allies and ideological paradigms. Thanks to input from the late Romanian President-for-Life Ceausescu, General Giap, and the Algerians, Arafat developed the images of the “illegal occupation” and “Palestinian national self-determination,” both of which lent his terrorism the mantle of a legitimate peoples’ resistance. After the Six-Day War, Muhammad Yazid, who had been minister of information in two Algerian wartime governments (1958-1962), imparted to Arafat some wisdom that echoed the lessons he had learned in North Vietnam:

Wipe out the argument that Israel is a small state whose existence is threatened by the Arab states, or the reduction of the Palestinian problem to a question of refugees; instead, present the Palestinian struggle as a struggle for liberation like the others. Wipe out the impression…that in the struggle between the Palestinians and the Zionists, the Zionist is the underdog. Now it is the Arab who is oppressed and victimized in his existence because he is not only facing the Zionists but also world imperialism.[2]Of course, there was one ingredient missing in this imaginative reconfiguration of the struggle: There had never been a “Palestinian People,” nor a “Palestinian Nation,” nor a sovereign state known as “Palestine,” nor even any specific territorial entity that could rightfully be called “historic Palestine.”

Inventing “Palestine”The term Palestine (Falastin in Arabic) was an ancient name for the general geographic region that is more or less today’s Israel. The name derives from the Philistines, who originated from the eastern Mediterranean, and invaded the region in the 11th and 12th centuries B.C. The Philistines were apparently from Greece, or perhaps Crete, or the Aegean Islands, and/or Ionia. They seem to be related to the Bronze Age Greeks, and they spoke a language akin to Mycenaean Greek. Their descendents, still living on the shores of the Mediterranean, greeted Roman invaders a thousand years later. The Romans corrupted the name to “Palestina,” and the area under the sovereignty of their littoral city-states became known as “Philistia.” Six-hundred years later, the Arab invaders called the region “Falastin.”

Throughout subsequent history, the name remained only a vague geographical entity. There was never a nation of “Palestine,” never a people known as the “Palestinians” nor any notion of “historic Palestine.” The region never enjoyed any sovereign autonomy, remaining instead under successive foreign sovereign domains from the Umayyads and Abbasids to the Fatimids, Ottomans, and British.

During the centuries of Ottoman rule, when the “dead hand of the Turk” (to quote Lord Byron, “Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage”) brutally frustrated the attempts at national self-determination among the Turks’ unhappy subjects in Greece, Armenia, Albania, and the Kurds, no Arabs under Turkish rule made any attempt to formulate an ideology of national identity, least of all the impoverished Arab peasantry in the region today known as Israel.

The emergence of Arab nationalism has been thoroughly documented, [3] and Arab sources are clear that even after the First World War, when the Ottoman Empire was carved up into various Middle Eastern nation-states, there was no concept of a separate state or people of “Palestine.” On the eve of the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, the very first congress of the Muslim-Christian Association met to select representatives; and they took care to note that the entity now termed Palestine by the British was “by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds” in inseparable part of Syria. [4] The same arguments were raised by Arab spokespersons in the UN on the eve of the 1947 partition plan.

The term Palestinian, ironically, was used during the British Mandate period (1922-1948) to identify the Jews of British Mandatory Palestine. The Arabs of the area were known as “Arabs”; and their own designation of the region was balad esh-Sham (the province of Damascus). While some Arab nationalist writers, and coffee-shop intellectuals in Cairo or Beirut, developed the concept of Arab nationalism in large part as a response to Zionism, the terms “Palestine” and “Palestinian” were used in their traditional sense as geographic designations, not as national identities.

In early 1947, in fact, when the UN was exploring the possibility of the partition of British Mandatory Palestine into two states, one for the Jews and one for the Arabs, various Arab political and academic spokespersons spoke out vociferously against such a division because, they argued, the region was really a part of southern Syria, no such people or nation as “Palestinians” had ever existed, and it would be an injustice to Syria to create a state ex nihilo at the expense of Syrian sovereign territory. [5]

An even greater irony is the fact that the Arab population of the region grew almost four-fold from the onset of the Zionist Endeavour (1855) to the beginning of Israel’s statehood (1948) in large part because of:

a) The efforts of the Zionist pioneers to reclaim waste land and turn it in to farmland, thus creating both farming and grazing land for Arabs; and

b) The substantial improvements in the economy of the region which were generated by both the British and the Zionists; and

c) The substantial improvements in the health services generated by the Zionists and the British.

From a mere 350,000 in 1855, the Arab population of the region increased to around 1.4 million by 1947. Part of this increase came from immigration in to the region from surrounding areas which lacked the burgeoning economy and health services offered by the British and the Zionists. Part came from the dramatic decrease in infant mortality and increase in longevity which the Arabs of the region enjoyed, thanks to the health and nutrition improvements generated by the Zionists and the British. [6]

Thus, it is quite likely that the majority of Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip today owe their very existence to Zionism and British Middle Eastern foreign policy.

During the 19 years from Israel’s victory in 1948 to Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War, all that remained of the UN’s partitioned territory to the “Arabs” of British Mandatory Palestine were the West Bank, under illegal Jordanian sovereignty, and the Gaza Strip, under Egyptian rule. Never during these 19 years did any Arab leader anywhere in the world argue for the right of national self-determination for the Arabs of these territories. A “Palestinian” nation and “Palestinian” people had not yet been invented. Even Yasser Arafat, from the earliest of his terrorist days until 1967, used the term ‘’Palestinians’’ to refer to the Arabs who lived under, or had fled from, Israeli sovereignty; and the term “Palestine” to refer to Israel in its pre-1967 borders (the 1949 armistice line).

Article 24 of the PLO’s original founding document, the PLO Covenant, states: “this Organization (the PLO) does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in the Gaza Strip or the Himmah area.” For Arafat before the Six-Day War, Palestine was Israel. It was not the West Bank or the Gaza Strip; because the West Bank and the Gaza Strip belonged to other Arab states, and the inhabitants of these areas were not numbered among the Palestinians whose “homeland” Arafat sought to “liberate.” The only “homeland” for the PLO in 1964 was the State of Israel. However, in response to the Six Day War, the PLO revised its Covenant on July 17, 1968, to remove the operative language of Article 24, thereby newly asserting a “Palestinian” claim of sovereignty to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

This ploy was, perhaps inadvertently, revealed to the West in a public interview with Zahir Muhse’in, a member of the PLO Executive Committee, in a March 31, 1977, interview with the Amsterdam-based newspaper Trouw.

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan. (Emphasis added.)Arafat himself said the same thing, on many occasions, and asserts often in his authorized biography (Alan Hart, Arafat: Terrorist or Peace Maker): “[T]he Palestinian people have no national identity. I, Yasser Arafat, man of destiny, will give them that identity through conflict with Israel.”

But such admissions could not stem the enthusiasm with which these fictions were greeted by Western leaders. Within a few years, the USSR’s invention of the fictitious narrative of Palestinian national aspirations and rights of self-determination created the facade of morality and legitimacy that the terrorists needed to curry favor with the EU, the UK, and the U.S. This same facade facilitated the Soviet implementation of its takeover, with the Arab bloc, of the UN General Assembly, and UN committees and functions outside of the Security Council.

“Palestinian nationalism” today?But what about today? After 60 years of unrelenting terror war against Israel, 60 years of hardship and privation incarcerated in refugee camps scattered throughout the Arab world — an incarceration forced upon them by their host Arab countries, not by Israel — after 40 years of the propagandistic pretense that the people today known the “Palestinians” were and are a cohesive national group with historic roots in what they call “Palestine,” and after 14 years of a “Palestinian Authority” created by the Oslo Accords to offer the “Palestinians” the framework and infrastructure of their own state…what is the condition of “Palestinian Nationalism” today?

For the answer to that question, we must look to the current demographic distribution of “Palestinians” both in Israel and in what they call the “Palestinian Diaspora.”

Estimates vary, but most place the Palestinian population at about 9 million worldwide. Of these, more than 3 millionlive in the West Bank and Gaza Strip today, [7] more than 4 million live in Arab countries, and the remainder have migrated elsewhere, mostly to the West. [8] These figures do not include the approximately 1.3 million Arab Israeli citizens (who are sometimes incorrectly referred to as “Palestinians” or “Israeli Palestinians”) living within the borders of pre-1967 Israel.

Although the Arab narrative states the “Palestinians” are Arabs who fled Israel in 1948, and fled the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967 and were forced in to refugee camps by their host Arab countries, less than one-third of all “Palestinians” in the Arab world and Israel live in refugee camps. More than 67 percent of these Palestinians have left the camps over the decades since those wars, and have created homes, jobs, and families for themselves throughout the Arab countries and the world.

Moreover, even those who remained in the refugee camps harbor no great desire to return to what the propaganda narrative claims are their homes and farms in Israel. In a 2003 opinion poll taken by Khalil Shikaki’s Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (Ramallah, Palestinian Authority), only ten percent of respondents said they would agree to return to a Palestinian state. Only 10 percent of these respondents — i.e., one percent of the entire survey — would agree to return to their homes in Israel if it meant becoming citizens of Israel; they would return only if Israel no longer existed and had been replaced by a Palestinian state. [9]

Clearly the results of this poll presented a serious challenge to the concept of Palestinian nationalism and to the hype and hyperbole that the Arab narrative has given to the wholly fabricated concept of “right of return.” So serious was this challenge, and so totally incapable were Arab leaders of mounting any rational argument against it, that they resorted to violence in order to silence Shikaki. Shortly after the poll was published, “there were about a hundred people who basically stormed into the office. They wanted to attack me, attack the center, attack the staff. They believe that the right of return is being tampered with…What it indicated is that there is a great deal of softness, practicality, on the exercise of the right in terms of people electing or choosing their place of residence. That is the shocking, [sic.] in terms of for the first time, having these results being made public.” [10]

Shocking indeed. Other reports indicate that nearly 200 armed gunmen stormed Shikaki’s offices, destroyed computers and books and records, threatened and intimidated office workers, and threatened to kill Shikaki himself if he continued his work. Clearly such concrete evidence that the Palestinian’s putative love for his land and yearning for his ancestral home is long a thing of the past, if indeed it ever existed at all, is existentially threatening to the propagandists who demand a “right of return” for all the millions of “Palestinians” who now claim the status of refugees.

Shikaki’s poll is even more important when one considers the tragic plight of Palestinians, refugees or otherwise, in their Arab host countries. One might think, on the basis of the oft-ballyhooed commitment of Arab states to the “Palestinian cause” that their Arab brethren would treat the Palestinian refugees well in their host countries. But one would be wrong.

The Palestinians have suffered grievously at the hands of their Arab hosts. Conditions vary from country to country, but Arab host governments and societies have maintained a level of hostility toward Palestinians that expresses itself in numerous legal limitations on their rights of movement, employment, land and home purchase, citizenship, discrimination and general antipathy on the part of the host society. Studies of attitudes in various host countries indicate a fear and suspicion of the Palestinians, and a hostility bordering on violence [11] — this despite the almost universal agreement by Arab states to the Casablanca Protocol, in which is outlined the need for the proper care and rehabilitation of the refugees, but without compromising their status as refugees. [12]

This hostility has in some cases overflowed into lethal violence against the Palestinians by their host brethren. During the first Gulf War, Kuwait expelled 300,000 of its 440,000 Palestinian residents because they sided with Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait, despite the fact that most of them had been born in Kuwait and lived there all their lives. This extreme Arab-vs.-Arab ethnic cleansing merited almost no column-inches in Western news outlets. More than a decade later, Kuwait’s hostility toward Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority is still intense. [13]

Perhaps even more revealing is the fact that once the Palestinian Authority was established, as a product of the Oslo Accords (of September 1993), and Palestinians worldwide looked forward to the emergence of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there was no perceptible influx of Diaspora Palestinians to their erstwhile homeland.

In light of the above, one may reasonably ask: Why do Arab leaders and their Amen Corner insist on the Arab “right of return” and the fulfillment of the putative “inalienable right of national self-determination” for the “Palestinian people”? Half of the answer has already been given to us by Arafat himself and Zahir Muhse’in in the aforementioned interview. But, unfortunately, the other half is more heinous than the first. The fiction of an uprooted and oppressed “Palestinian people” is really much more than a justification for endless terrorism and war against Israel: it is also the hoax whereby the Arab bloc in the UN can maintain, at levels of near hysteria, their justification for a propaganda war and a terror war against the United States.

Palestinians in the Jihad against “global non-belief”As described above, Palestinians and their leaders were allied with the Nazis before and during World War II. After the war, Arab states offered safe haven to Nazi criminals and incorporated Nazi Jew-hatred in to traditional Muslim anti-Jewish ideology. During the Cold War, Palestinians were in alliance against the U.S. with the USSR, serving as their proxy terrorists against Western targets; and during the first Gulf War they sided with Saddam Hussein. Palestinian leadership and some significant part of the rank-and-file have been the enemies of the USA and the West for the past 70 years. [14]

Today, Hezbollah and Hamas work with Iran and al-Qaeda to advance the cause of global jihad. Israel is the first target, but the USA is next. Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasr’allah has said, “’Death to America’ is not a slogan. Death to America is a policy, a strategy, and a vision.”

Just as Arafat served his Soviet masters, so too now do Hamas and Hezbollah serve Iran. Pursuant to Iran’s goals and strategies, Hezbollah has attacked many USA targets over the past 25 years. Iran’s use of Hezbollah as its proxy gives Iran “plausible deniability” in these actions.Of Hezbollah’s terror attacks against USA targets, the most deadly were the April 18 and October 23, 1983, suicide bombings against American targets in Beirut, killing 63 and 241 Americans respectively, wounding hundreds of others. [15]The tragic and very perilous reality is that Palestinian Arabs, since before World War II, have in large numbers supported the very worst of America’s enemies, from the Nazis to the Soviets to Saddam Hussein; and now they support the Islamo-fascist terrorist jihad against the West. Today the majority party in the Palestinian Authority is Hamas, a self-defined terrorist organization which has joined forces with Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and Iran in their terror war against the West. On September 13, 2001, a high-ranking Hamas official told the world just how deeply Hamas hates the U.S. In response to the attack of 9/11, Dr. Atallah Abd as-Subh published an open letter to America, in which he said: “Allah has answered our prayers; the sword of vengeance has reached America and will strike again and again.” [16]Hamas cooperates closely with al-Qaeda. Since the Israeli unilateral and unconditional retreat from the Gaza Strip in August, 2005, al-Qaeda cells under the leadership of Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi, have entered the Strip and work alongside of Hamas and the dozen other terror groups at large there. Al-Zarqawi recruits Gaza Strip Palestinians with family members in the West Bank for his terrorist efforts because they can more easily cross the Israeli check points under the guise of “family reunions.”Al-Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah deployed for terror in the USA

Operatives from the major Arab and Iranian terror groups have infiltrated our own homeland with the intent to attack us from within. Palestinian terror groups and individuals are a key part of this operation. [17]Very little of this information has ever appeared in our mainstream media. Rather, the task of informing the American public of the dangers posed to us by Iranian and Palestinian terrorist jihad falls, with very few exceptions, to more highly specialized (and apparently more honest and courageous) media outlets.A survey of these non-mainstream media discloses the most discomforting evidence that Palestinian and other terrorists are:

Thoroughly and comfortably ensconced in downtown America, under the noses of law-enforcement and Homeland Security officials, and they number in the thousands; [18]

Training for war in secret camps in the USA; [19]

Infiltrating the USA’s own military; [20]

Penetrating Washington, D.C., with political influence, staffers, and spies; [21]

Exploiting our legal system to advance their propaganda and stifle criticism or analysis of their jihadist goals; [22]

Copying American Indian legal precedents in order to establish enclaves of Muslim legal independence in which Shari’a law trumps the Constitution inside the USA; [23] and

Working to prevent us from understanding the jihadist goals of these actions by dissimulating, covering up and whitewashing the terrorists and their apologists. [24]And our mainstream media seem ignorant of, or inclined to ignore, the accumulating evidence that jihadist sleeper cells abound with Hezbollah and Hamas and al-Qaeda terrorists hidden within the Islamic American community, waiting for the call to action from Teheran or Damascus. [25]

Palestinian attempted attacks on American SoilRecently declassified CIA documents reveal that as early as March 1973, the Palestinian terrorist group Black September, a PLO sub-group created by Arafat, tried to detonate three car bombs in New York City, timed to coincide with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir’s visit. The powerful bombs, which might have killed or wounded hundreds, failed to explodedue to improper wiring of the timing mechanisms. It is now well known that Arafat ordered the murders of American and Belgian diplomats in Sudan. And since then the PLO and Fatah and other Palestinian terrorists groups have claimed dozens of Americans as their victims. Later, individual Palestinians carried out their own personal version of jihad with attacks or attempted attacks on American soil. Palestinian Arabs in Brooklyn prepared a biological terror attack on a Brooklyn bus and a subway station, which was thwarted by an almost unbelievable stroke of good luck. (A neighbor in their Brooklyn apartment complex noticed the multiple UPS deliveries of glass laboratory equipment to their apartment. She alerted the police, thinking that they were running a ‘meth-lab’ in their kitchen). Palestinians were involved in the attack on the World Trade Center in February 1993. They had also planned to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, and the United Nations building.

And many more attacks have been planned. Especially after 9/11, al-Qaeda commanders and officials stationed in Western countries, including the United States, have recruited Hamas operatives and volunteers to carry out reconnaissance or to serve as couriers. In August 2004, two suspected high-level Hamas operatives, Mohammed Salah and Abdelhaleem Ashqar, were detained in the U.S. and charged with providing material support to Hamas, racketeering and money laundering. In November 2003, Jamal Aqal, a Gazan who emigrated to Canada, was arrested in Israel under suspicion of receiving weapons and explosives training from Hamas for use in future terror attacks in Canada and New York City. Aqal pleaded guilty in 2004 to planning to kill American and Canadian Jewish leaders and Israeli officials traveling in the U.S.

Also in 2004, Ismail Selim Elbarasse, a long-time Hamas money man, was arrested in Maryland, reportedly after authorities witnessed his wife videotaping Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay Bridge from their SUV as Elbarasse drove. The images captured by Elbarasse’s wife included close-ups of cables and other features “integral to the structural integrity of the bridge,” according to court papers. Hamas leaders discussed openly their plans, and threats, to carry out terror operations against American targets in the Middle East and in the USA because of America’s support for President Abbas and the PLO after Hamas’ election victory.ConclusionDuring the week of June 13, 2007, Hamas forces soundly defeated the much larger and better armed Fatah forces in Gaza, killing at least 160 Arab Palestinian Fatah loyalists, effectively destroying the Palestinian Authority in the Gaza Strip and establishing complete control over the Gaza Strip.

This new development affords Hamas a prime strategic asset for escalating its violent campaign against Israel. This sudden and unexpected shift, this rebellion against Abbas, is also a rebellion against moderation; and it is a direct attack against U.S. goals in the Middle East. Hamas’ actions, and the widespread support for these actions among the Palestinian people, also reveal something else: that the Palestinian people are at war with America.

The history outlined above demonstrates that this war has been going on for three-quarters of a century, beginning in the 1930s with the alliance between the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler, developing from the 1960s to the present with Arafat’s actions as an agent for Soviet policy and a supporter of Sadam Hussein in the first Gulf War, and Hamas’ overtly anti-American threats and attacks and its backing of Hezbollah’s attacks against Americans today.

It cannot be argued that hatred of America is restricted to only a small minority of Palestinians, the leaders, the fanatics, the extremists. Hundreds of thousands adored the Mufti and yearned for his Final Solution. Millions followed Arafat, cheering and celebrating when he hit both Israelis and Americans. Tens of thousands flocked to his banner to join his forces (Fatah, PLO, PFLP, PFLP-GC, DFLP, the abu-Nidal group, Tanzim, Force 17, el-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, the Black September Group, among others) and created a full-fledged terrorist army.

Moreover, in 1996 the Palestinian people voted him in to office with a landslide victory. When his mandate expired in January of 2000, there was no opposition to his continued illegal control of the Palestinian Authority until his death in November 2004. After Arafat’s death, the voters’ loyalties shifted not to his supposedly more moderate successor, Mahmoud Abbas (nor to any of the other moderate parties on the 2006 PA ballot: Hanan Ashrawi’s “Third Way” party garnered only 3 percent of the votes on a platform of ending the Intifada), but to the terrorist army offering the most extreme agenda of terrorism and mass murder and endless war against Israel and against the USA: Hamas.

But why this animosity toward America? One reason commonly offered is that Palestinian hatred comes from U.S. support for Israel. The fictions of the “Palestinian people” who have been exiled and oppressed by Israel, and of the “Palestinian homeland” which has been stolen from its rightful owners by the evil Zionists, provide justification to Arab hatred against the USA for supporting Israel, the cause of all the Palestinian suffering.

But while the U.S. does support Israel, it has also done much to support the Arab world, the Palestinians, Yasser Arafat, and the PLO in particular. And the USA has been a prime mover in the efforts since World War II to create a Palestinian state alongside of Israel. After World War II, President Roosevelt took the uncompromisingly anti-imperialist position that Third World countries should be given the opportunity for self-determination; and the Muslim Third World was very much a part of his vision. On a regular basis from Roosevelt to Clinton, the U.S. has given almost as much money to Egypt as to Israel, has given billions more over the years to many other Arab states, and has given billions more to UNRWA for support of Palestinian refugees, and this despite the fact that UN representatives acknowledge that UNRWA refugee camps have become havens for terrorists whose targets include Americans and who have been complicit in the development of worldwide terrorism.

In addition to being a consistent source of financial largesse to the Palestinians, America has for almost 60 years has consistently and intentionally turned a blind eye to the fact that at least some of that money is used to recruit, train, equip, arm, and deploy terrorists against Israel, and at times against American targets.

As president, Jimmy Carter played a crucial role in Arafat’s makeover from terrorist to statesman, and as ex-president he has slavishly supported the Palestinians. Arafat was an honored guest at the White House more than any other head of state during Bill Clinton’s presidency. President Clinton hosted the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, which brought Arafat out of exile and set in to motion what should have been the creation of a Palestinian state. He presided, as well, over the Camp David II talks, in which Arafat was offered the state of Palestine on a silver platter. Presidents Clinton and Bush have authorized hundreds of millions of dollars of aid to the PA since the Oslo Accords (1993).

President Bush was the first American president to make a public commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state; and he led the “Quartet” in initiating the Road Map whose main goal was getting peace negotiations back on track so that a Palestinian state could emerge with the resolution of the conflict.

If their right to national self-determination and getting their own state were indeed what the Palestinians’ leadership wanted, that leadership would see the U.S. as an ally. But they see the U.S. as an enemy. Why? Because their most profound dreams do not involve national self-determination or a state of their own.

The Palestinians are instead motivated by the dream of what the most extreme of the world’s Muslim terror armies say they can deliver: the destruction of Israel, “Death to America,” and “Islam uber Alles.”

ENDNOTES:

[1] Much of the following is based upon research published in Meir-Levi, David, History Upside Down: The Origins of Palestinian Fascism and the Myth of Israeli Aggression (Encounter Books, 2007).The PLO was actually the brain-child of the KGB, which was creating a number of front “liberation” organizations throughout the Third World, which would serve as proxies for Soviet aggression against the West.

In 1964 the first PLO Council, consisting of 422 Palestinian representatives handpicked by the KGB, approved Moscow’s blueprint for a Palestinian National Charter—a document that had been drafted in Moscow—and made the KGB agent of influence, Ahmed Shuqairy, the first PLO chairman. The Romanian espionage service (DIE) was given responsibility for providing the PLO with logistical support. Except for the arms, which were supplied by the KGB and the East German Stasi, everything (as Pacepa wrote) “…came from Bucharest. Even the PLO uniforms and the PLO stationery were manufactured in Romania free of charge, as a “comradely help.”

The Soviets not only armed and trained Palestinian terrorists but also used them to arm and train other professional terrorists by the thousands. The International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), the Soviet Security Police (KGB) and Soviet Military Intelligence (GRU) all played major roles in this effort. The International Department of the CPSU, working out of the Lenin Institute in Moscow, had the main responsibility for supervising the curriculum of revolutionary thought and practice in these groups as well as liaison with the Central Committee of the CPSU. Selected members of Western and Third World Communist Parties following the Soviet line were trained there in psychological warfare and propaganda, as well as in military techniques and guerrilla warfare.

The CPSU also built Moscow’s Patrice Lumumba Friendship University to serve as a base of indoctrination and training of potential “freedom fighters” from the Third World. More specialized training in terrorism was provided at locations in Baku, Odessa, Simferopol, and Tashkent. Mahmoud Abbas, later to succeed Yasir Arafat as head of the PLO, was a graduate of Patrice Lumumba U, where he received his Ph.D. in 1982 after completing a thesis involving Holocaust denial.

[2] As quoted in Pacepa, Ion Michai, Red Horizons.[3] See George Antonius, The Arab Awakening: The Story of the Arab National Movement; Baruch Kimmerling and Joel S. Migdal, The Palestinian People: A History; and Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness, for very comprehensive and in-depth surveys of this topic, with ample bibliography.

[4] Hertz, Eli E., Myths and Facts, 2005, and cf. also Porath, Yehoshua, The Palestinian Arab National movement: From Riots to Rebellion, 1977. It is instructive in this context to note that Khalidi (supra note #3) attempts to make a case for a nascent national identity among the Arab Muslims of the Holy land, constructed over a long period of time, as early as the late 18th century. This assertion has found support in some of his reviewers (and cf. inter alia, Geoffrey Schad’s review of Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness, in the Middle East Policy Council Journal, Volume VI, February 1999, Number 3); but even a cursory reading of Khalidi’s treatment of this subject reveals that the only early example of what he calls “Palestinian National sentiment” is actually an example of Muslim religious apartheid. The Muslim religious leaders of Jerusalem protested the Sultan’s permitting French representatives to establish an office in Jerusalem in the late 18th century. The Jerusalem Muslim religious elite were affronted that an infidel “Ifrangi” (Frenchman) not under a dhimmi treaty should be allowed to pollute the sacred precinct with his presence. Disdain and disgust for someone of another religion is hardly an example of nationalist sentiment.[5] As correctly noted by Kimmerling and Khalidi (supra note #4) and Conan Cruise O’Brien in The Siege.

[6] For details regarding the population growth of the Arabs in the region in the century before the creation of the State of Israel, cf. Justin McCarthy, Population of Palestine (1990); and more generalized treatment of the issue by Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial, and Conan Cruise O’Brien, The Siege. See also http://www.cjpme.ca/documents/En%20Demographics%20Factsheet%20v.1.pdf and https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/paldem1.html.[7] For a detailed discussion of the origins of the Arab Refugee Problem, the proof that the total onus of culpability for the creation of the Arab refugee population rests not upon Israel but upon the Arab states who invaded Israel in 1948, and the documented evidence for an original refugee population of around 725,000 (which magically burgeoned in to many millions over the past si decades), see David Meir-Levi, Big Lies (David Horowitz Freedom Center, 2005).It is important to note that the Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1965 was about 1,000,000. After the Six-Day War the population at first declined due to Arab refugees fleeing the Israeli army; but very shortly thereafter it began a rapid increase as refugees returned and the economy of the West Bank and Gaza Strip flourished under Israeli sovereignty. Since 1967 the Arab population there has almost quadrupled. Yet the spin-meisters and propagandists routinely accuse Israel of perpetrating a genocide on the Palestinians (some hedge their accusations with the bizarre assertion that it is a “slow motion genocide”).

The salutary nature of Israel’s sovereignty over the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip from 1967 to 1994 is confirmed by the UN. The UN provides a separate estimate of the total Palestinian population of the Gaza, East Jerusalem, and West Bank. It indicates that this population was 1,006,000 million in 1950, and rose to 1,100,000 in 1960, 1,094,000 in 1970, and then leapt to 1,477,000 in 1980 and 2,152,000 in 1990. This increase was the result of improvements in income and health services during the initial period of Israeli occupation before the Intifada. The Palestinian population rose to 2,629,000 in 1995 and 3,183,000 in 2000 – a more than 20% increase during the five years before the Israeli-Palestinian War [the second uprising] began [Source: Anthony Cordesman, “From Peace to War: Land for Peace or Settlements for War,” (DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, August 15, 2003), pp. 12-13.]

[8] Below are samples of Palestinian population estimates from various sources including the UN and PASSIA (the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, Ramalla, Palestinian Authority). [For maps of dispersion, and statistics showing where the bulk of the refugees live, go tohttp://mondediplo.com/maps/refugeesdiasporapaldpl2000 and

Source: PASSIA (Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs)

[9] Shikaki, Khalil, Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, athttp://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2003/refugeesjune03.html. Shikaki’s poll was conducted between January and June of 2003, and published on his website in July of 2003, http://www.pcpsr.org/index.htmlMr. Shikaki took quite a bit of flack for this poll. Note Issam Mufid Nashashibi’s “Palestinians and the Right of Return,” in Counterpunch, August 21, 2003. Nashashibi condemned the poll as being rigged in order to undermine the rights of the Palestinians. The essence of Nashashibi’s criticism is that Shikaki did not include in his survey any Palestinians living outside of the refugee camps (Shikaki explains that he did this because they were no longer refugees, having integrated in to their host countries). It never seems to have occurred to Mr. Nashashibi that indeed, Palestinians born to 2nd and 3rd generation residents of various Arab countries who have jobs and homes and families in those countries might indeed be integrated in to those countries and would not want to return to his mythic “Palestine.”

The National Review also had some harsh words for Shikaki in Max Abrahms’ “Right of Return Revisited,” August 13, 2003. Abrahms pointed out that the problem was the nature of the questions posed. It seemed obvious to Abrahms that Palestinians would not want to go to a Jewish State, so, of course, 99% said no. But, opines Abrahms, they would want to return if the state were Palestine, and not Israel. It does not seem to have occurred to Mr. Abrahms that any such return would involve the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state…hardly a sound option if one is seeking peace in the Middle East.

The PLO’s Palestinian Legislative Council denounced the U.S. missile strike in western Iraq (in response to Iraqi attacks on Kurds there last year), as “American aggression against the sister state, Iraq.” The PA also urged Arab states to provide Iraq “any form of financial aid and moral support…so that sister Iraq can recapture her natural place in the taking of the national and pan-Arab responsibility.” (An Nahar, Sept. 5, 1996)

In 1991, the PLO representative in Washington, Hassan Abu Rahman, circulated a fabricated transcript of a radio interview in which U.S. General Norman Schwarzkopf supposedly “admitted” that “the war that our men fought against Saddam Hussein was for Israel, our men fought to destroy Israel’s main enemy in the region.” (Jerusalem Post, June 5, 1991)

During the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf crisis, PLO chairman Yasir Arafat was Saddam Hussein’s closest Arab ally. After the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, the PLO denounced America’s opposition to the occupation, accusing Washington of “beating the drums of a destructive war and raising tension toward a complete explosion.” (Jerusalem Post, Aug. 14, 1990).

According to the London Independent, “much of the logistical planning for the Iraqi invasion was based on intelligence supplied by PLO officials and supporters based in Kuwait.” (Jerusalem Post, Aug. 8, 1990)

According to Yossef Bodansky, The Secret History of the Iraq War, Arafat was closely involved with Saddam in training special Iraqi terrorist forces for attacks against Israel and the USA using chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. Arafat’s PLO trainers worked in Syria and in Iraq in partnership with both Saddam and el-Qaeda to train and deploy Iraqi and Palestinian terrorist cells to infiltrate Israel, Europe and the USA for such attacks.

[15] The following list of Hezbollah attacks against the USA, since the organization was created by Iran in 1982, is from Jewish Virtual Library, per supra (note # 8).July 19, 1982, Beirut, Lebanon. Hezbollah members kidnapped David Dodge, acting president of the American University in Beirut. After a year in captivity, Dodge was released. Rifat Assad, head of Syrian Intelligence, helped in the negotiation with the terrorists.

March 16, 1983, Beirut, Lebanon. Five American Marines were wounded in a hand grenade attack while on patrol north of Beirut International Airport. The Islamic Jihad and Al-Amal, a Shi’ite militia, claimed responsibility for the attack.April 18, 1983, Beirut, Lebanon. A truck-bomb detonated by a remote control exploded in front of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 employees, including the CIA’s Middle East director, and wounding 120. Hezbollah, with financial backing from Iran, was responsible for the attack.

October 23, 1983, Beirut, Lebanon. A truck loaded with a bomb crashed into the lobby of the U.S. Marines headquarters in Beirut, killing 241 soldiers and wounding 81. The attack was carried out by Hezbollah with the help of Syrian intelligence and financed by Iran.January 18, 1984, Beirut, Lebanon. Malcolm Kerr, a Lebanese born American who was president of the American University of Beirut, was killed by two gunmen outside his office. Hezbollah said the assassination was part of the organization’s plan to “drive all Americans out from Lebanon.”

March 7, 1984, Beirut, Lebanon. Hezbollah members kidnapped Jeremy Levin, Beirut bureau chief of Cable News Network (CNN). Levin managed to escape and reach Syrian army barracks. He was later transferred to American hands.March 8, 1984, Beirut, Lebanon. Three Hezbollah members kidnapped Reverend Benjamin T. Weir, while he was walking with his wife in Beirut’s Manara neighborhood. Weir was released after 16 months of captivity with Syrian and Iranian assistance.

March 16, 1984, Beirut, Lebanon. Hezbollah kidnapped William Buckley, a political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. Buckley was supposed to be exchanged for prisoners. However when the transaction failed to take place, he was reportedly transported to Iran. Although his body was never found, the U.S. administration declared the American diplomat dead.April 12, 1984, Torrejon, Spain. Hezbollah bombed a restaurant near an U.S. Air Force base in Torrejon, Spain, wounding 83 people.

September 20, 1984, Beirut, Lebanon. A suicide bomb attack on the U.S. Embassy in East Beirut killed 23 people and injured 21. The American and British ambassadors were slightly injured in the attack, attributed to the Iranian backed Hezbollah group.September 20, 1984, Aukar, Lebanon. Islamic Jihad detonate a van full of explosives 30 feet in front of the U.S. Embassy annex severely damaging the building, killing two U.S. servicemen and seven Lebanese employees, as well as 5 to 15 non-employees. Twenty Americans were injured, including U.S. Ambassador Reginald Bartholomew and visiting British Ambassador David Miers. An estimated 40 to 50 Lebanese were hurt. The attack came in response to the U.S. veto September 6 of a U.N. Security Council resolution.

December 4, 1984, Tehran, Iran. Hezbollah terrorists hijacked a Kuwait Airlines plane en route from Dubai, United Emirates, to Karachi, Pakistan. They demanded the release from Kuwaiti jails of members of Da’Wa, a group of Shiite extremists serving sentences for attacks on French and American targets on Kuwaiti territory. The terrorists forced the pilot to fly to Tehran where the terrorists murdered two passengers–American Agency for International Development employees, Charles Hegna and William Stanford. Although an Iranian special unit ended the incident by storming the plane and arresting the terrorists, the Iranian government might also have been involved in the hijacking.June 14, 1985, Between Athens and Rome. Two Hezbollah members hijacked a TWA flight en route to Rome from Athens and forced the pilot to fly to Beirut. The terrorists, believed to belong to Hezbollah, asked for the release of members of the group Kuwait 17 and 700 Shi’ite prisoners held in Israeli and South Lebanese prisons. The eight crewmembers and 145 passengers were held for 17 days during which one of the hostages, Robert Stethem, a U.S. Navy diver, was murdered. After being flown twice to Algiers, the aircraft returned to Beirut and the hostages were released. Later on, four Hezbollah members were secretly indicted. One of them, the Hezbollah senior officer Imad Mughniyah, was indicted in absentia.

September 9, 1986, Beirut, Lebanon. Continuing its anti-American attacks, Hezbollah kidnapped Frank Reed, director of the American University in Beirut, whom they accused of being “a CIA agent.” He was released 44 months later. September 12, 1986, Beirut, Lebanon. Hezbollah kidnapped Joseph Cicippio, the acting comptroller at the American University in Beirut. Cicippio was released five years later on December 1991.October 21, 1986, Beirut, Lebanon. Hezbollah kidnapped Edward A. Tracy, an American citizen in Beirut. He was released five years later, on August 1991.

February 17, 1988, Ras-Al-Ein Tyre, Lebanon. Col. William Higgins, the American chief of the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization, was abducted by Hezbollah while driving from Tyre to Nakura. The hostages demanded the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon and the release of all Palestinian and Lebanese held prisoners in Israel. The U.S. government refused to answer the request. Hezbollah later claimed they killed Higgins.March 6, 1989, Cairo, Egypt. Two explosive devices were safely removed from the grounds of the American and British Cultural centers in Cairo. Three organizations were believed to be responsible for the attack: The January 15 organization, which had sent a letter bomb to the Israeli ambassador to London in January; the Egyptian Revolutionary Organization that from out 1984-1986 carried out attacks against U.S. and Israeli targets; and the Nasserite Organization, which had attacked British and American targets in 1988.

November 8, 1991, Beirut, Lebanon. A 100-kg car bomb destroyed the administration building of the American University in Beirut, killing one person and wounding at least a dozen.June 25, 1996, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. A fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside the U.S. military’s Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, killing 19 U.S. military personnel and wounding 515 persons, including 240 U.S. personnel. Several groups claimed responsibility for the attack. In June 2001, a U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, identified Saudi Hezbollah as the party responsible for the attack. The court indicated that the members of the organization, banned from Saudi Arabia, “frequently met and were trained in Lebanon, Syria, or Iran” with Libyan help.

[16] Ar-Risala [the Hamas official newspaper], Sept. 13, 2001, quoted in MEMRI, Sept. 17, 2001, #268, http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=jihad&ID=SP26801[17] In-depth exposure of this infiltration in to the USA by Palestinian and other Arab terrorist groups can be found in:Bodansky, Yossef, Target The West: Terrorism in the World Today, 1993, and The Secret History of the Iraq War (2005)

Kushner, Harvey, Holy War on the Home Front: The Secret Islamic Terror Network in the United States;

Sperry, Paul, Infiltration: How Moslem Spies Penetrated Washington;

Murawiec, Laurent, Princes of Darkness: The Saudi Assault on the West;

Spencer, Robert Islam Unveiled and Onward Muslim Soldiers;

Trifkovic, Serge The Sword of the Prophet and Defeating Jihad

Infiltration in to Latin America has been on-going since the early 1980’s, and very successful in Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela. For a brief summary of the situation see Meir-Levi, David, “Connecting the South American Terror Dots,” (FrontPage Magazine, August 9, 2004) and Barlett, Donald and Steele, James, “Who left the door open? American’s border: even after 9/11 it is outrageously easy to sneak in,” (Time Magazine, September 20, 2004). For further corroboration of the continued expansion of the Arab terror bases in South America, and the infiltration of these terrorists in to the USA via Mexico, cf.: BBC News, “Arab smuggling network broken up,” April 28, 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/3710060.stm; Coman, Julian, “Arab terrorists are getting into the US over Mexican border”, UK News Telegraph, May 15, 2004; Cucullu, Lt. Col. Gordon, “Hamas moves into South America,” Front Page Magazine, Feburary 10, 2006; Gato, Pablo and Windrem, Robert, “Hezbollah builds a Western base: From inside South America’s Tri-border area, Iran-linked militia targets U.S.,” NBC News, May 9, 2007; Jehl, Douglas, “U.S. aides cite worry on Qaeda infiltration from Mexico,” New York Times, February 17, 2005; Myers, Joseph and Poole, Patrick, “Hezbollah, Illegal Immigration, and the next 9/11,” FrontPage Magazine, April 28, 2006; North, Oliver, “Back Door to Terror,” Human Events, October 20, 2004, and cf. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17639; and Sherman, Mark, “FBI warns of ‘special interest’ aliens,” Associated Press, March 8, 2006)

[24]. Poole, Patrick, “Cover Up and Deny,” FrontPage Magazine, Part I, May 16, 2007, Part II, May 31, 2007.[25] Asman, David, “Does any terrorist organization pose a greater threat to Americans than al-Qaeda?” aired on Fox News, January 20, 2007, as “Smokescreen: Hezbollah Inside America”; Gaubatz, Dave, “Sleeper Cells in the United States and Canada, American Thinker, February 5, 2007, and cf. http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/sleeper_cells_in_the_united_st.html; and Lathem, Niles, “N.Y. Hezbollah Hunt,” New York Post, May 22, 2006; and cf. supra, note #10 for more in-depth analysis of this threat.

1) A Summit based on Arabist false language. 2) Is Israel’s survival on the table?

Re: ILLEGAL Arab “Palestinians” have semantics

Let’s see, those Arab immigrants grandchildren, the so called “Palestinians”, don’t really pay much for their parents/grandparents, and their own crimes of initiating attacks on little Israel with a clear attempt of annihilation (What “occupation”? what was their plan in 1929, 1948, and all those years priort to 1967? and why are most attacks on innocent unarmed Israelis in: Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Netanya, Haifa, etc.?) So basically, they are back at square one, when the ILLEGAL Arab “Palestinians” refused the UN offer of a two states solution.

Now they have all the “moral” language all of a sudden? They can sing all day ñlong the fake excuse for the so called “occupation”, and Israel can’t even cry for it’s survival from Islamic Arab racist terrorism and genocide plans?